[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 12, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2302-S2303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         University of Michigan

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, George Washington was nearing the end of 
his Presidency. He dreamed of a national university for the United 
States to be located in Washington. This university was going to bring 
together all the different people of this great country into one 
educational setting to learn together, to learn from each other, to get 
to know each other, to overcome prejudices and intolerance.
  President Washington actually planned to include his vision of such a 
university in his now famous and historic Farewell Address. It was not 
included in that Farewell Address. Apparently, one of the people who 
was working with him on that Farewell Address was Alexander Hamilton 
who urged, as he was writing the address, drafting it:

       The idea of the university is one of those which I think 
     will be most properly reserved for your speech at the opening 
     of the session. A general suggestion respecting education 
     will very fitly come into the address.

  In other words, what Hamilton was saying is this vision of yours, Mr. 
President, about a national university, where people can come to shed 
their prejudices from various parts of the country, to live and work 
with each other should be saved for a different address. Leave it out 
of the Farewell Address.
  In fact, President Washington ended up leaving it out of his Farewell 
Address, but he included it in a letter. It is a letter which has come 
down through the generations, and that vision of a national university 
was outwardly reflected in this letter.
  He stated his belief that this country would be stronger if the 
children from different parts of the country could come together in an 
educational setting to learn from each other and about each other.
  I want to read a few parts of this letter of George Washington 
because I think it has an application to the University of Michigan 
case which is currently pending in the Supreme Court.
  I come from the State of Michigan. I am proud of it, and I am proud 
of our university and its effort to promote diversity, and not just 
racial diversity, but geographic diversity, economic diversity, gender 
diversity--diversity in general which has been promoted by not just the 
University of Michigan but by most universities in this country, and it 
seems to me is to be encouraged.
  What George Washington sensed 205 years ago was that a university had 
a special ability to bring together different people to help them learn 
about each other, drop their fears of each other and make us one 
Nation.
  This is what he wrote:

       I have regretted that another subject (which in my 
     estimation is of interesting concern to the well-being of 
     this country) was not touched upon also: I mean Education 
     generally as one of the surest means of enlightening and 
     givg. just ways of thinkg to our Citizens, but particularly 
     the establishment of a University; where the Youth from all 
     parts of the United States might receive the polish of 
     Erudition in the Arts, Sciences and Belle Letters; and where 
     those who were disposed to run a political course, might not 
     only be instructed in the theory and the principles, but 
     (this Seminary--

  Referring to the university--

     being at the Seat of the General Government) where the 
     Legislature wd. be in Session half the year, and the 
     Interests and politics of the Nation of course would be 
     discussed, they would lay the surest foundation for the 
     practical part also.
       But that which would render it of the highest importance, 
     in my opinion, is, that the Juvenal period of life, when 
     friendships are formed, and habits established that will 
     stick by one; the youth . . . from different parts of the 
     United States would be assembled together, and would by 
     degrees discover there was not that cause for those 
     jealousies and prejudices which one part of the Union had 
     imbibed against another part; of course, sentiments of more 
     liberality in the general policy of the Country would result 
     from it. What, but the mixing of people from different parts 
     of the United States during the War rubbed off these 
     impressions? A century in the ordinary discourse, would not 
     have accomplished what the Seven years association in Arms 
     did; but that ceasing, prejudices are beginning to revive 
     again, and never will be eradicated so effectually by any 
     other means as the intimate intercourse of characters in 
     early life, who, in all probability, will be at the head of 
     the councils of this country in a more advanced stage of it.

  He went on:

       To shew that this is no new idea of mine, I may appeal to 
     my early communications to Congress; and to prove how 
     seriously I have reflected on it since, and how well disposed 
     I have been, and still am, to contribute my aid towards 
     carrying the measure into effect, I enclose you the extract 
     of a letter from me to the Governor of Virginia on this 
     Subject, and a copy of the resolves of the Legislature of 
     that State in consequence thereof.
       I have not the smallest doubt that this donation (when the 
     Navigation is in complete operation, which it certainly will 
     be in less than two years), will amount to twelve or 1500 
     pounds Sterlg a year, and become a rapidly increasing fund. 
     The Proprietors of the Federal City have talked of doing 
     something handsome towards it likewise; and if Congress would 
     appropriate some of the Western lands to the same uses, funds 
     sufficient, and of the most permanent and increasing sort 
     might be so established as to envite the ablest Professors . 
     . . to conduct. . . .

  President Washington saw that the two strongest ways to unite a 
country are when people go to war together against the common enemy and 
when they go to school together with a common goal, to learn. While we 
would all like to avoid the need to fight together, we all know we can 
strengthen our ties to democracy and to our country when we learn 
together about the world and each other.
  Learning together allows us to strip away the prejudices that would 
otherwise keep us apart. The hope of George Washington was later joined 
by the dream of Martin Luther King and by the promise and the potential 
of Brown v. Board of Education a half century ago, and they are now 
hanging in the balance because of the issues that are raised in the 
University of Michigan affirmative action cases before the Supreme 
Court.
  In April, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear two oral arguments 
in two separate lawsuits challenging the University of Michigan's 
diversity admissions policy. The Court's decision in these cases will 
result in the most far-reaching affirmative action ruling since the 
Bakke decision in 1978. The Court will decide the critical issue of 
whether Bakke still remains the law of the land and whether racial or 
ethnic diversity has a value at a university which can be considered in 
admissions of higher education.
  In the Bakke decision, the Court ruled against rigid quotas or set-
asides based on race but found that higher education could consider 
race or ethnicity as a factor in a properly considered competitive 
admissions process to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.
  If the Court overturns Bakke, it could outlaw any consideration of 
race or ethnicity in admissions to colleges and universities.
  There is a national security factor to this issue as well. There are 
going to be a number of military officers and people connected with 
national security and defense who will be filing an amicus brief in 
support of the University of Michigan because universities run ROTC 
programs. Those programs, where there is diversity at the universities 
that have them, produce officers for the military, who in turn are 
diverse and reflect our population. The failure to have officers who 
reflect our population in terms of race and ethnicity and gender, the 
failure to have diversity in our officer corps, led to huge problems of 
morale in the military for decades, until just about 20 years ago when 
we reached out and made great efforts to have diversity in our officer 
corps. That is going to be a part of the issue in an amicus brief filed 
in the University of Michigan case.
  I am not going to spend a lot of time on that aspect, but I do want 
to at least comment on the fact that a significant number of very 
significant military officers, retired officers, who have been 
connected at the highest levels with our Nation's military and its 
schools, are going to be filing a brief

[[Page S2303]]

with the Supreme Court relative to this issue.
  I want to comment on the more fundamental issue, which is the value 
of diversity in a university and whether it is conceivable in this 
country that we will say to universities that they can give additional 
points for geography, which many universities do, including the 
University of Michigan. In other words, they can reach out to students 
in different parts of their State who have been underrepresented and 
try to get better representation from those underrepresented parts. 
They can give additional points for that. They can give additional 
points for gender. If the law school has not had women students, they 
can give additional points for that in order to overcome the problems 
which were created when women were discriminated against. They can have 
an affirmative action program for that. They can give additional points 
to alumni, kids--and they all do--and athletes--and they all do--and 
the children of public officials--and many of them do.

  Geography alone, which George Washington talked about--I went to a 
college out east which I know for a fact reached out geographically in 
this country to try to have good representation from various parts of 
the country. I come from the Midwest. My SAT scores were not as high as 
some of the kids' in the East, but the college I went to decided it was 
important to those kids from the East that they have kids from the 
Midwest, kids from the Far West, kids from the South, kids from the 
Southwest, kids from Alaska, kids from Hawaii, kids from Africa--it is 
important to the education of our students that they go to school with 
a diverse group of students. So they gave out geographic points. I got 
points. I do not think I would have gotten into my college, my beloved 
college, Swarthmore, but for the fact that I came from the Midwest and 
I was given some additional points. I do not know for sure, but that is 
my belief, and that is the likelihood, I have no doubt. I know they 
have geographical affirmative action. Is it conceivable that points can 
be given for everything but race to achieve diversity, that race is 
singled out as the one area where we cannot reach out to achieve 
diversity in our universities? Is it possible that is what we are going 
to come to in this country, that the equal protection clause will be 
turned right on its head? The 14th amendment, which was designed, at 
least in significant measure, to end the scourge of the remnants of 
slavery, is going to be used to prevent diversity from being achieved 
in one area where it is most important that we have a diverse 
university, and that is the area of race. It is the one area where we 
have had the most difficulty in overcoming the kind of prejudices and 
obstacles President Washington talked about and for which he said a 
university was the most suited, other than going to war together.
  Our military has done a spectacular job in terms of diversity. It has 
been a huge factor in the promotion of democracy in this country. 
Hopefully, we do not have to go to war to promote coming together and 
learning to overcome prejudices and differences. Hopefully, our 
universities can be allowed to reach out, as they are with geography, 
to overcome the fact that some parts of our States are totally 
underrepresented in our educational institutions, to say, yes, we are 
going to reach out to that part of the State and we are going to try to 
get more students from there; they may not have done quite as well on 
their SATs, because of various historic factors or whatever, but they 
are highly qualified students, so we are going to give some additional 
points to those students. But not race? Race would be singled out for 
not being permitted to be given additional consideration to achieve 
diversity which is so valuable in education? That would be an 
unthinkable, unconscionable result, and a distortion of the very 
purpose of the equal protection clause.
  Of all the areas where we have the most hurdles to overcome, most 
barriers to overcome, more attitudes to overcome, more prejudices to 
overcome, with all the progress we have made--and we have made a lot--
we have a long way to go in the area of race. The idea that somehow or 
another all that other diversity, all those other additional points can 
be given--alumni kids, you can get 10 points; athletes, you can be 
given 20 points; gender, you can be given points; economic, you can be 
given points--but not race, that would be, it seems to me, singling out 
race for discriminatory treatment when it comes to promoting diversity 
at a university.

  The law school's current policies have been upheld by the Sixth 
Circuit as being consistent with Bakke. The Sixth Circuit has 
explicitly rejected the plaintiff's contention that the system used by 
the University of Michigan was the functional equivalent of a quota. 
The Sixth Circuit found that the law school's admissions program is 
``virtually indistinguishable'' from the Harvard man, which Justice 
Powell held out in the Bakke decision as the appropriate model.
  In the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program, 110 
points out of 150 are given for academic factors, including grades, 
test scores, and curriculum. The greatest weight, up to 80 points, goes 
to high school grade point average. Applicants can earn up to 12 points 
for SAT or ACT scores, up to 10 points for attending a competitive high 
school, 8 points for taking the most challenging curriculum, and 3 
points for SAT quality. Other factors can be considered, including 
geography, athletics, relationship to alumnus, economic disadvantage. 
Points can be added for students from various parts of the State which 
have been underrepresented at the university. Students who have 
athletic scholarships get additional points, children of alumni get 
additional points, students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds 
get additional points. And at the University of Michigan, students from 
an underrepresented racial or ethnic minority or attending a high 
school serving a predominantly minority population can receive 
additional points. And the provost can award additional points to 
applicants at his or her discretion.

  The idea it is all right for colleges and universities to give 
special consideration to all the other groups--children of alumni, 
large donors' children--how is that one? It is OK to give special 
consideration to the children of large donors for whatever university 
purpose that serves--but it is not OK to give additional points to 
underrepresented minorities for the obvious university purpose that 
serves, which is a diverse student population, which our first 
President, the Father of our Country, pointed out in this letter is 
absolutely essential if this country is going to be one, if this 
country is going to be unified.
  Indeed, he saw that 200-plus years ago. I hope the Supreme Court will 
have the wisdom of reading that letter and seeing how important it is 
that President Washington's dream to bring people from different parts 
of the country, that people of different backgrounds, which is the 
University of Michigan program, can, in fact, be realized. That is what 
some of the stakes are in the University of Michigan case.
  Since we are talking judicial matters this evening, I wanted to raise 
that issue, as well.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Is the Senator going to another subject for long?
  Mr. LEVIN. It will be lengthy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to speak on the Estrada nomination.
  Mr. LEVIN. You can talk for quite some time on that. You have talked 
longer, I believe, than I have on this evening.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Not as long as some of the other Members over there.
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me try to limit this to about 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has the floor.